You truly think Blacks are targeted because they are Black? And Chinese are targetted because they are Chinese? You think women are targetted because they are women? You think native americans were targetted because they were native americans? You think anyone is selected for genocide for aestetic reasons only?

You think race, nationality, class, anything is the source of all genocide... AND NOT THE RESOURCES SAID PEOPLE POSSESS/PROVIDE?

When will this 7th grade assumption levae my generation.. how many decades must they recycle the same arguments and refuse to address the inconsistancies... Civilians use these arguments of aestetics because they lack the ability to envision larger networks and gain/loss relationships.

Genocide is government funded. Government doesn't fund *anything* unless there is a gain. There *MUST* be a financial incentive to wiping out a people. Otherwise, it is considered a waste of money. War is way too expensive to just throw armies into places pall-mall.

Click to expand...

what the fuck is wrong with you Ghet?

Abortion is not genocide.

Just because it is now condoned by the state (US) doesn't mean it is Government led.
And government funded?????....... funded???? funding has nothing to do with genocide

Abortions were taking place in back alleys and appartments turned into makeshift clinics

Young women were dying (in large numbers) because these procedures were being conducted by untrained professionals with unsterilized equipment using barbaric procedures.

Abortion itself............. has been going on for centuires in every single society.

Tell me...... who are the Authors of the genocide YOU call abortion?????????????
and what is there COMMON diagnosis?

Who is managing this Genocide........???????
And how are they coordinating with the Perpetrators one another to bring this plan to fruition?

What is causing the Auxilliaries to participate willfully in the PLANNED extermination......

It is easier to teach a brick to be a computer than it is to teach a civilian to not be a civilian.

Click to expand...

You're starting to sound like ML. You are a civilian, Ghet.
And you are partially right. But you are also partially wrong.

Chinese were targetted by Japan because Japan did not have access to oil or tin. Chinese also controlled a very debilitating economic relationship for Japan that dates back to the silk shipments of Feudal Japan. Japan sought to remedy that by simply taking the country.

Click to expand...

Uh huh, a war that has been going on for 3,000 years began over oil and tin?
Dude, get a fuckin grip.

Women were made into mothers because for thousands of years, the best way to improve your economic situation was to have more children.

Click to expand...

Being mothers has nothing to do with inequality.
Being treated like lesser human beings does.
Pull your head out of your ass.
You're smarter than this.

Native Americans existed on land and were pushed off. Colonists continued to expand, came across isolated tribes, butchered them, then built some hamlets.

Click to expand...

[funny]

Way to over-simplify the situation.
Viewing people as nothing more than "objects" to be dealt with in order to posess the earth is FUCKING STUPID! Nobody controls the earth and even if they do, they die and get ate by the same damn worms that will you and I.

I understand that you are saying that this is a motive behind their genocides and holocausts, etc. It is a motive. In the process however, they have to condition people to see the OTHER PEOPLE as "lesser human beings" and they do this by identifying those OTHER PEOPLE as a "group" and classify them together by either skin tone, culture, religion, etc. THAT IS WHAT GENOCIDE IS!

Abortion is NOT a genocide.
No matter what sort of distraction you try to use with words, and accusations that whoever doesn't agree with you is somehow inferior and a "civilian," it doesn't change the fact that abortion is NOT "Genocide" . . .

Stop trying to bully people (by an appeal to emotions [the emotion of ego]) into accepting your redaction of the word. The WORD has a meaning. Abortion does NOT fit that definition. We have to either change the definition of Genocide for abortion to fit into that category or we have to invent a NEW word for it.

Seriously, you can grasp this.
I know you can.

Failure to understand any of this means you simply do not comprehend the value of people in terms of infrastructure and economics. Therefore, your entire justification of why genocide is genocide is moot and false.

Click to expand...

[funny]

Moot, did you pick that word up from Kashta or did he get it from you?

No one is targeted due to aestetics. You're just a civilian making that assumption because you do not see the ifnrastructural benefit of what people have when they are targetted.

Click to expand...

You're right Ghet . . . I don't see the "infrastructural benefit" of what people have when unborn babies are targetted. Maybe you can break that down for me. (It isn't exactly a priority on my list, we do have people that are alive and are suffering. The un-born are not a concern at the moment).

Tell me Arabs are being killed for being Arab, not because of their oil. Please. Tell me that, next.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse me for a liberal.
The Arabs are being killed for many reasons.

This is my question to you Ghet. Everybody who pushes for something this adamently has an internal motive. Nobody is this vehemently against something unless they do. Now, I recall you saying that you do not believe in God, correct. The last time I seen you speak on God was when you said God is "Organized Chaos" . . .

If God does not exist (or at least the "moral" God) then please tell me how I am to believe that you are "morally apalled" by the death of these infants . . .

What makes them important to you and why should I find them significant when you don't ever actually take a stance on ANYTHING based off of "morals"? Get the fuck outta here with your bullshit appeals to morality man. I seen the posts you make.

You aint gonna help single mothers feed their unborn babies.
You don't support the welfare system.
You understand that everybody can't work.

Shut up with that shit.
You don't want to fix a damn thing.
You think I can't see past you?

Just because it is now condoned by the state (US) doesn't mean it is Government led.
And government funded?????....... funded???? funding has nothing to do with genocide

Abortion itself............. has been going on for centuires in every single society.

Tell me...... who are the Authors of the genocide YOU call abortion?????????????
and what is there COMMON diagnosis?

Who is managing this Genocide........???????
And how are they coordinating with the Perpetrators one another to bring this plan to fruition?

What is causing the Auxilliaries to participate willfully in the PLANNED extermination......

Defining genocide as broadly as you are is in error.

Click to expand...

Your density is unrivaled. Take pride that you are immune to being taught. I hear they are hiring statues somewhere in a museum.

Funding has nothing to do with genocide!? So guns, ropes, uniforms, swords, knives, bullets, tanks, gas, and transportation of soldiers into foreign lands grows on trees, is free of cost, and availible to all?! Your ultra-narrow, pity-party-induced definition of genocide is the problem.

Why are you immune to understanding infrastructure? Is it a genetic deficiency? Why is -EVERYONE- on this board immune to understanding infrastructure?!

The economic benefit of abortion is god awful simple and obvious for anyone with half a brain that understands population patterns.

It's the same reason males are the majority of those in prisons. Reduction of aggression to keep civilians tame.

It's the same reason we force our kids to take behavoir modification drugs as early as possible. Reduction of aggression to keep civilians tame.

It's the same reason we promote homosexuality as a life choice. Reduction of aggression to keep civilians tame.

It's the same reason we slaughter entire generations of people before they are born. Reduction of aggression to keep civilians tame. Crime is reduced *WHEN POPULATIONS ARE REDUCED*

BeGeEe... Ever heard of Thomas Edgar? He's a Democrat who said this on public radio:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't—never touches this at all.

EDGAR: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

EDGAR: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as—abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

EDGAR: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both—you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well—

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

EDGAR: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Click to expand...

It is a planned, intentionally, government-funded genocide that is hidden behind a screen of rights specifically targetting a demographic of people because of what that people can do.

Abortions were taking place in back alleys and appartments turned into makeshift clinics

Young women were dying (in large numbers) because these procedures were being conducted by untrained professionals with unsterilized equipment using barbaric procedures.

Click to expand...

What in sweet holy fucking Christendom does this have to do with anything we are talking about?

Try being upfront for a fuckin change and say why you're really against abortion.
Stop tryin to play games by connecting it to terms. Be a fuckin man. Be original.

Click to expand...

You have no grip on history.

None.

You recite the words but you cannot envision hte ifnrastructure of the times. The reasons for economy. The uses of people in their systems and why they did what they did. You can only argue from an aestetic viewpoint alone, a shallow, baseless, and hollow existance.

You recite the words but you cannot envision hte ifnrastructure of the times. The reasons for economy. The uses of people in their systems and why they did what they did. You can only argue from an aestetic viewpoint alone, a shallow, baseless, and hollow existance.

Instead of trying to accuse people of not understanding the way that everything (abortion included) is either embraced or rejected by the said leadership (or the elite) depending on whether it is ultimately beneficial to "their" agenda and the system which they have established and hope to establish, why don't you elaborate and say whatever it is you think we don't understand.

This is something that I noticed that you do.

You make a statement. When somebody tells you that you are wrong you accuse them of not understanding something that you've "only recently" begun to study in order to inflate your ego and place yourself over them in some weird need to feel praised.

If the connection is there, make them. Show us HOW and WHY abortion IS genocide instead of accusing us of not being able to see something that you are unable to elaborate on. I have no problem playing devil's advocate if it accomplishes the goal. Sometimes the best way to beat somebody is to let them think that you are as ignorant as they are and agree with them against somebody else who you "actually" agree with so that the other person will show them that they are wrong and you don't have to (knowing that IF you do it yourself it will wind down into page after page of insults).

One thing you don't seem to see is that if I agree with you, the conversation stops. If I disagree with you, you fall victim to the weakness that is RM and resort to assaulting what you "believe" I am (ignorant to the infrastructure).

Say what you mean. Stop playing games.
Like I said before, be original.

Let us assume I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. So explain it in terms which "teach me" . . . It serves no purpose (especially when you are "playing the role" of one who cares for the undereducated) to use fancy language and try to talk over everybody's head.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. Nobody on RM can seem to understand anything I say, so I don't imagine that they will see what you're saying because you're not connecting the dots. You're just pointing at all the dots on the page and screaming out, "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THE PICTURE!!!?"

Your density is unrivaled. Take pride that you are immune to being taught. I hear they are hiring statues somewhere in a museum.

oh, no. Ghet is hurling insults now.
Way to skew the debate.

Funding has nothing to do with genocide!? So guns, ropes, uniforms, swords, knives, bullets, tanks, gas, and transportation of soldiers into foreign lands grows on trees, is free of cost, and availible to all?! Your ultra-narrow, pity-party-induced definition of genocide is the problem.

Yes funding has nothing to do with GENOCIDE itself. Perhaps in the effectiveness its application.....but not in the GENOCIDE itself. Every genocide has authors, who, create a diagnosis to deal with the problem group or groups. Im having a tough time connecting your theory because abortion (by any method) was ongoing before the development of governments and statecraft.. Human's have been terminating pregnancies for centuries and its been documented. The methods have been prefected, and the access to such acts as well. All of this combined with expotential population growth would no doubt make abortion numbers skyrocket(but the #'s of dead also does not prove genocide). There is no proof that abortion is government led or government created. In societys where their is no authority, taking a piss is no different than kicking a girl you got pregnant in the belly. If you could make this connection, better(more clear) and provide alot more evidence than you are, I would be greatly interested. However, it seems as though your trying to highlight how the social elite<the establisment> has harnessed the power of mass abortion (to ineffect, tame the citizens, prevent change to the status quo, and hamper rebellion) and this would be hard for you to prove. And, even if you did, it still wouldn't make ABORTION genocide.

Why are you immune to understanding infrastructure? Is it a genetic deficiency? Why is -EVERYONE- on this board immune to understanding infrastructure?!

Way to build your case

The economic benefit of abortion is god awful simple and obvious for anyone with half a brain that understands population patterns.

It definatly benefits the social elite, and not just economically. Doesn't proved that they authored abortion

It's the same reason males are the majority of those in prisons. Reduction of aggression to keep civilians tame.

Terrible evidenciary example

It's the same reason we force our kids to take behavoir modification drugs as early as possible. Reduction of aggression to keep civilians tame.

Terrible evidenciary example

It's the same reason we promote homosexuality as a life choice. Reduction of aggression to keep civilians tame.

LOL

Click to expand...

Build your case!
Trying to make me feel stupid isnt going to gain you any ground.

You've dodged all my questions that had you anwsered.....would have built your case.

Throwing around the term GENOCIDE is erroneuos.

read Lemkin.
Theres plenty of his work out there........
He would probably tell you that you are missing point by labeling abortion genocide.

Instead of trying to accuse people of not understanding the way that everything (abortion included) is either embraced or rejected by the said leadership (or the elite) depending on whether it is ultimately beneficial to "their" agenda and the system which they have established and hope to establish, why don't you elaborate and say whatever it is you think we don't understand.

This is something that I noticed that you do.

You make a statement. When somebody tells you that you are wrong you accuse them of not understanding something that you've "only recently" begun to study in order to inflate your ego and place yourself over them in some weird need to feel praised.

If the connection is there, make them. Show us HOW and WHY abortion IS genocide instead of accusing us of not being able to see something that you are unable to elaborate on. I have no problem playing devil's advocate if it accomplishes the goal. Sometimes the best way to beat somebody is to let them think that you are as ignorant as they are and agree with them against somebody else who you "actually" agree with so that the other person will show them that they are wrong and you don't have to (knowing that IF you do it yourself it will wind down into page after page of insults).

One thing you don't seem to see is that if I agree with you, the conversation stops. If I disagree with you, you fall victim to the weakness that is RM and resort to assaulting what you "believe" I am (ignorant to the infrastructure).

Say what you mean. Stop playing games.
Like I said before, be original.

Let us assume I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. So explain it in terms which "teach me" . . . It serves no purpose (especially when you are "playing the role" of one who cares for the undereducated) to use fancy language and try to talk over everybody's head.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. Nobody on RM can seem to understand anything I say, so I don't imagine that they will see what you're saying because you're not connecting the dots. You're just pointing at all the dots on the page and screaming out, "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THE PICTURE!!!?"

Azues, I've long disregarded the things you've said. You're a neo-tribal primitivist with no concept of history. There is no need to talk to you about subjects that escape your understanding.

BeGeEe

I understand your refusal to answer the only question I've asked you. It's an important expectancy of you to seperate yourself from any group of people because your young, stupid, and incapable of comprehending complex social situations.

But in the end, one day, you will. And when you actually integrate with a population of your choicing, I will try my hardest to make sure that every female in that population has the opion of abortion readily availible.

Genocide is a political tool to remove power from a demographic by killing them. That is all it is. Using gas or guns does not determine if it's genocide or not.

Who am I kidding, this is coming from a nation that talks bad about Nazis yet wiped out an entire race of people. The only thing you can criticize about Nazis is that they didn't outperform you!

Genocide is a political tool to remove power from a demographic by killing them. That is all it is.

WRONG!

fuckin 100%

You cannot bend the definition of genocdie to fit your argument

Using gas or guns does not determine if it's genocide or not.

No shit fool.
I've been telling you this!
You said 60,000,000+ dead and I said so what!, that doesn't make it a Genocide.
Copy and paste where i've said anything remotely close to this.
LOL
I have been saying just the opposite.

"Lemkin uses the word genocide broadly, not only to describe policies of outright extermination against Jews and Gypsies, but for less immediate Nazi goals as well. In Lemkin's analysis Nazi Germany had undertaken a policy for the demographic restructuring of the European continent. Therefore he also used the word genocide to describe a "coordinated plan of different actions" intended to promote such goals as an increase in the birthrate of the "Aryan" population, the physical destruction of the Slavic population over a period of years, and policies to bring about the destruction of the "culture, language, national feelings, religion" and separate economic existence (but not physical existence) of non-German "Aryan" nations thought to be "linked by blood" to Germany."-

^ lemkin!

I would agree that Another nation of race that incresses their birth rate and decreases anothers birth rates, culture, language, national feelings, and religion is genocide. But only when carried out by another national race.

Bege is correct, Abortion in General is to vauge to fit the definition of genocide. However, Ghet could be correct as well, Snice genocide can be ambigious as I stated above.

"Lemkin uses the word genocide broadly, not only to describe policies of outright extermination against Jews and Gypsies, but for less immediate Nazi goals as well. In Lemkin's analysis Nazi Germany had undertaken a policy for the demographic restructuring of the European continent. Therefore he also used the word genocide to describe a "coordinated plan of different actions" intended to promote such goals as an increase in the birthrate of the "Aryan" population, the physical destruction of the Slavic population over a period of years, and policies to bring about the destruction of the "culture, language, national feelings, religion" and separate economic existence (but not physical existence) of non-German "Aryan" nations thought to be "linked by blood" to Germany."-

This is not broad. it is also very specific
Also, every aspect of Hitlers (this) plan is and would occur well into the genocide.
This, interpretation of Lemkin, does nothing for the case that abortion is genocide.
Increasing the birthrate of the ARYAN pop does not run parallel to ABORTION in the world as we know it today.
He had already begun eliminating and the exterminating Jew Roma Sinti Homosexuals Blacks..........
Systematically crushing the "culture, language, national feelings, religion" of any non aryan nation......with FORCE.

^ lemkin!

I would agree that Another nation of race that incresses their birth rate and decreases anothers birth rates, culture, language, national feelings, and religion is genocide. But only when carried out by another national race.

Bege is correct, Abortion in General is to vauge to fit the definition of genocide. However, Ghet could be correct as well, Snice genocide can be ambigious as I stated above.

Genocide is not AMBIGUOUS.
Even the interpretation of Lemkin you found does not make the Term Genocide seem ambiguous

Click to expand...

GENOCIDE: refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

Look at this kid cling to the limitations of his language.. as if the fencing of the word contains the power itself, and not the idea it encapsulates.

Then I surely hope you take your rage against the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide for changing the definition of genocide!

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally-recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

In fact, you should be VERY upset with the UN since they even defined genocide in much more specific terms!

Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.

Any action....?

Any action....?

Notice the complete, utter, and total lack of the definition requiring an incidious white man at the top of government being required before an action is called genocide.

ANY

ACTION

OF POPULATION TRANSFER WHICH HAS THE AIM OR EFFECT OF VIOLATING OR UNDERMINING ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS.

AIM (intention)

OR (a conditional modifier which either condition's presence satisfies the condition)

Increasing the birthrate of the ARYAN pop does not run parallel to ABORTION in the world as we know it today.

Click to expand...

Why are you quoting like that?
Why are you writting so big?
Stop being annoying. You completely misunderstood my intent here.

First off, It's yhow you're OWN Source "LEMKIN" discribed it.

Secondly, I never disagreed with you.

Thridly, When one decides to Put their races Brithrates over another, They are not only going to kill off the culture, language, national feelings, religion, But they are also going to kill off the Mothers fetus. Thus, Abortion can be apart of genocide.

Genocide is not AMBIGUOUS.

Click to expand...

That's a blod statement.

Of course it is.

If we are speaking of abortion in general and not of a paticular national grouping,
The the word GENOCIDE, DOES NOT APPLY!

Thridly, When one decides to Put their races Brithrates over another, They are not only going to kill off the culture, language, national feelings, religion, But they are also going to kill off the Mothers fetus. Thus, Abortion can be apart of genocide.

lol
what was that? haha

When one decides to put their birth rates over another while they are attempting to kill off everyone (man, woman, and child) yes they will probably kill (not abort) a fetus or 2......
Thus, killing off fetuses' of mothers is a part of genocide

and abortion has nothing to do with genocide.
If during a genocide, the genocidiaries conduct abortions or experiments on fetuses, this would be regaurded as surplus cruelty, and nothing more.